Jed Meshew (MMA Fighting) has no idea how to score fights

[D 1 Wrestler]

Sounds like someone purposefully trying to be edgy to generate a following, whether good or bad

 

[MCS]

A submission attempt is an immediate threat to end the fight, not sure why you think that immediate threat only applies to damage. The judging criteria clearly states that it applies to submission attempts as well as strikes.

Taking a beating would be both immediate and cumulative. You can escape a sub attempt without taking damage.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Taking a beating would be both immediate and cumulative. You can escape a sub attempt without taking damage.

Yes but a submission attempt is still an immediate threat to end the fight and you were arguing it wasn't. I'm not commenting on Volk vs Ortega just that you weren't reading the judging criteria as is.

 

[MCS]

Yes but a submission attempt is still an immediate threat to end the fight and you were arguing it wasn't. I'm not commenting on Volk vs Ortega just that you weren't reading the judging criteria as is.

No. I was saying which was more.

 

[Ares Black]

I really like how my simple thread to make fun of Jed Meshew has evolved into a nuanced and interesting discussion about MMA scoring criteria.

 

[Johnny_Knuckles]

Sounds like someone purposefully trying to be edgy to generate a following, whether good or bad

Well, tbh, you would know a little something about that

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

No. I was saying which was more.

Depends on the situation, but yes in this one I would agree. I would have scored round 3 10-8 for Volkanovski if it wasn't for the two submission attempts, I think that was enough for Ortega to earn a 9.

 

[Ares Black]

Well, tbh, you would know a little something about that

 

[humdizzle]

lol i'm just imaging jed putting in his 10-8 score card at the end of round 3... and then they stop the fight because ortega can't get off the canvas.

 

[MCS]

Depends on the situation, but yes in this one I would agree. I would have scored round 3 10-8 for Volkanovski if it wasn't for the two submission attempts, I think that was enough for Ortega to earn a 9.

I'm a bit torn if it's a 10-9 or 10-8. Yes, you tally up points, and those sub attempts were both deep, I'd say the guillotine deeper. But the fight also could've been stopped as the round ended. How much doing good earlier in the round matters if the action amounts to laying there half dead.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I'm a bit torn if it's a 10-9 or 10-8. Yes, you tally up points, and those sub attempts were both deep, I'd say the guillotine deeper. But the fight also could've been stopped as the round ended. How much doing good earlier in the round matters if the action amounts to laying there half dead.

Yeah, it certainly could have been stopped between rounds. It was a shame the ref allowed his corner to drag him back onto the stool.

 

[VinceArch]

Well, tbh, you would know a little something about that

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Well, tbh, you would know a little something about that

Thanks for following

 

[MRT]

There is a difference in thinking here. To me, understanding the general idea of the rule to apply the idea of the creator is what matters. To you, it needs to be clearly written, word for word, to cite it.

I do agree about clarifications. I think BJM's efforts for the new rules were much needed, but the execution wasn't perfect. They're caps locking "immediate", though, as they at least in the past couldn't use the word "damage" (some approval thing there). Immediate would be the substitute word.

I think they succeeded with damage over volume, even with the wording of immediate and cumulative, as hard shots are scored better now. But damage vs sub attempts is trickier to convey. It would have to be written just like that, then. They're giving out more 10-8's, for better or worse. I think that needs improvement, as they're handing them out too loosely in some cases.

And they partially failed with the grounded opponent rule, as fighters can still game it by putting both hands on the ground, and if the opponent decides to punch in a clinch he loses the grip to control them partially. If he can knee he can keep a body lock. Besides, if you put both hands on the floor without any advancement you do it to game the rules. You can bait fouls with the up and down bullshit.

I just think the words matter quite a lot...but agree there is room to improve in some areas. A good rule set should provide as much clarity as possible in detailing what is expected/prohibited and minimize the subjective element. Too much discretion leads to a lack of clarity for athletes and fans, and generally results in a poorer product, IMHO....i.e., the less that officials become 'part of the game', the better.

I agree that it can be tricky to weigh damage from strikes vs. sub attempts, but I feel the current wording does a decent good job of informing how to do so...I just think some people don't like the results, like when they see someone with 'visible damage' get a decision over a guy who appears 'unhurt', on the basis of dominating the grappling. But imagine if 'damage' replaced 'immediate'...in theory, one low-damage jab could still cause relatively more damage than multiple deep choke or leg lock attempts, despite those attempts likely having considerably more potential to lead to ending the fight...which is precisely the behaviour the rules are trying to incentivize and what the fans (hopefully) want to see, right? I suppose there is no answer that will satisfy everyone and there will always be a subjective element.

I do agree that there is a lot of room to improve though...the 10-point must system is flawed, as there absolutely should be a 'draw' option (although I can see shit judges falling back on that WAY too often lol)...gaming certain rules is problematic, as you mention...fouls of eye pokes and weight misses not really being 'addressed' by point deduction and purse penalties...all commissions not adopting the same rule set (which is ridiculous, IMHO).

Anyhow...I appreciate the thoughtful discussion...all too rare around here

 

[TCE]

Lol. Apparently not. He 'defends' his score in one of the links I posted. Says it would have been 10-7 Ortega but Volkanovski finished strong.

He is a fool.

Damn, really?

NSAC will see this post and hire him tomorrow.

What an idiot.

 

[fortheo]

Yeah I'm not a fan. He's arrogant, too.

Extremely arrogant. I've seen him do some videos with mike heck (a journalist who I don't mind), and you can just feel his arrogance dripping from his smug face. I can't even watch those videos anymore.

He makes Luke Thomas seem like the most humble reporter in MMA.